Privilege isn't an issue with Claude (generally).

Maintaining privilege depends on taking steps to ensure the continued confidentiality of the data - put a lock on your file cabinet, sign an agreement with the vendor where they promise not to look at or use the data for their own purpose.

Even if hacker news thinks that agreement isn't ironclad doesn't mean privilege is or should be destroyed. It's more about whether you limit the distribution of the data in a reasonable way. Today, zdr remains reasonable.

AFAIK no state level organisation has sanctioned someone for this. You can opt-out of data collection, which some practitioners think is good enough to satisfying their professional liability- risk tolerance depends on the individual (this is not advice, just my observation!)

A large corpus of documents does not have to mean privileged info. Put all of the public documents from a case in there and ask it about a judges reasoning.

Honestly that wouldn’t be a terrible product: Pull in all of a judges written judgements or stated logic about their rulings and preemptively craft your case around their biases.